**********************************************
**********
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
*****************************************************************
FACT SHEET
"SLAMMING": THE UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES OF CONSUMERS'
PREFERRED CARRIERS
Summary / Background
· Slamming is the practice of changing consumers' telecommunications carriers without their
knowledge or permission.
· To deter slamming, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted new anti-slamming
rules in December, 1998 by:
1. Strengthening the liability rules to take the profit out of slamming by absolving
consumers of 30 days of slamming charges.
2. Strengthening the procedures by which carriers must obtain customer verification of
preferred carrier change requests.
3. Broadening the scope of these verification procedures to apply to local as well as long
distance carriers.
4. Establishing rules governing preferred carrier freezes, which prohibit carriers from
changing a consumer's preferred carrier without that consumer's express authorization to
"lift the freeze."
· The majority of the Commission's slamming rules took effect on April 27, 1999. The
effective date of the liability rules were delayed for 90 days to enable the industry to implement a
plan for an independent third party for dispute resolution and administration of the liability rules.
However, the liability rules were stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) on May 18, 1999 at the request of MCI WorldCom, Inc.
· The liability rules were at the core of the FCC's efforts to eliminate slamming by giving
consumers meaningful redress. Indeed, there was a decline in slamming complaints received
by the FCC (and local telephone companies reported similar declines) during the period
immediately prior to the May 1999 stay that may well have been attributable to carriers'
recognition that the liability rules would make it costly to continue slamming. For example:
1. In April 1999, the FCC received 1,355 slamming complaints, compared to only 840
complaints in May 1999.
2. SBC's records showed that in April 1999, it received 23,484 slamming complaints, compared
to only 15,271 complaints in May 1999.
3. Bell Atlantic's records revealed that in March 1999, it received 35,556 slamming complaints,
but that these complaint numbers dropped to 19,263 in April 1999 and to 15,951 in May
1999.
Court Stay
· March 30, 1999 - MCI WorldCom, AT&T Corporation, the Competitive Telecommunications
Association, Sprint Corporation, the Telecommunications Resellers Association, Excel
Telecommunications, Frontier Corporation, and Qwest Communications Corporation filed a Joint
Petition for Waiver of the Commission's liability rules.
-- more --
· May 10, 1999 - MCI WorldCom filed a Motion for Stay Pending Judicial Review in the D.C.
Circuit asking the court to stay the liability rules while the court decides whether they are
arbitrary, capricious or otherwise unlawful.
· May 18, 1999 - The D.C. Circuit issued a stay of the Commission's liability rules pending further
order of the court. This court order did not affect the other slamming rules adopted, which went
into effect in April 1999. The court ordered that the case be held in abeyance and directed the
parties to file motions to govern further proceedings within thirty days of the Commission's
disposition of the pending petitions for reconsideration of the slamming Order. Therefore, the
effective date of the liability rules was indefinitely delayed.
Slamming Complaints
· Slamming has been the single largest source of complaints to the Commission over the last
several years.
· Written complaints processed by the FCC:
1996 12,795
1997 20,475
1998 20,124
1999 21,868
2000 3,000 complaints in the first quarter of the year
Enforcement Actions
· Since April 1994, the Commission has:
1. Imposed final forfeitures against eight companies for $10,321,500.
2. Entered into consent decrees with 12 carriers with combined payments of $2,710,000.
3. Proposed $7,640,000 in Notices of Apparent Liability (NALs) against five companies.